« The Perfect Valentine's Gift... | Main | What Do Pro-Life Activists Think of Mitt Romney's Abortion Record? »

February 08, 2012

Santorum!!!!

Heh.

Will have something up later about Santorum's 3 state sweep, but for now real life needs to take precedence.

It's been interesting reading the various takes (and comments!) on the Santorum Surge. This, from Ann Althouse, particularly amused me:

I'm listening to Santorum speaking. He's saying tonight's results show what happens when we don't have one candidate vastly outspending the others, and this is therefore more like what will happen in the fall. That is, Romney's been depending on his money, but in the end, he won't be able to do that.

Think about this one for a minute. If money (i.e., outspending other candidates) significantly influences elections, then ....

Feel free to finish that sentence in the comments. And do tell me what you think this all means. I've been thinking about that very topic all morning and have some interesting things to throw out later.

Posted by Cassandra at February 8, 2012 07:58 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.villainouscompany.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/4045

Comments

What does it all mean?

Romney does well in his own back yard (UT, the NorthEast) and its retirement community (FL).

Gingrich does well in his own back yard (SC).

Santorum does well in the social cons back yard.

I tell you, I'm SHOCKED!

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at February 8, 2012 11:01 AM

"If money (i.e., outspending other candidates) significantly influences elections, then ...."

...you get American Idol-style voters, voter fraud and an a$$wipe like Xerxes', I Won!, the Lord of the Lies as your de facto dictator.

Posted by: DL Sly at February 8, 2012 11:21 AM

Yu-Ain, you ignorant slut :p

Don't you know that a *real* conservative candidate would be able to say exactly the same thing to different audiences who have different values and priorities and make them all forget their values and priorities and vote for him?

/sarc

Posted by: Cassandra at February 8, 2012 11:22 AM

True enough, but eventually someone's going to have to learn how to preach to more than their own choir.

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at February 8, 2012 12:14 PM

eventually someone's going to have to learn how to preach to more than their own choir.

Damn you for making me inhale massive amounts of coffee :p

Posted by: Cassandra at February 8, 2012 12:42 PM

The money buys speech. Money is speech. The more money you have, the more you can "speak" to the American people in ads, commercials, and other types of messaging. More money = more speech.

And that is a real triumph of our modern Democracy. Not so much a triumph for the Republic which we used to be, but for the rule of the American Idol mob which chooses our political leadership these days.


Blanket the field with enough messaging and you can persuade. Especially if you get a lot of "in kind" messaging support from the Mass Make-Believe Media (MBM), which is how we got "Xerxes - I Won!" as DL Sly refers to our present President.

And as he has said before in the near recent past, the Super-PACs are a bad thing, until he now has his own Super-PAC, and then many in the MBM say nothing. There is a pattern here, but I just cannot quite ddiscern it.

It reminds me of that year, 2008, when all the candidates were going to abide by the Federal Campaign contribution rules, until one of them decided he wouldn't because he had an advantage (hint: Xerxes - I Won!), and then it didn't matter, did it? Unlimited contributions with the security features checking online credit card contributions disabled for that campaign- and the band played on. Funny how that happens.

Posted by: Don Brouhaha at February 8, 2012 12:47 PM

If money (i.e., outspending other candidates) significantly influences elections, then ....

fire is hot.

Posted by: spd rdr - sprung from cages on Highway 9 at February 8, 2012 01:00 PM

I don't know, let me ask Gov. Whitman, oh wait a minute.

Posted by: Allen at February 8, 2012 01:25 PM

If money (i.e., outspending other candidates) significantly influences elections, then ....

...it would seem to follow that whoever we nominate had better be good at raising money.

Saying "See? I can win so long as no one outspends me by too much" isn't going to fly in the national race against Barack Obama.

Posted by: Princess Leia in a Cheese Danish Bikini at February 8, 2012 01:28 PM

is he Of The Saints, or From The Saints?

Posted by: Boquisucio at February 8, 2012 02:27 PM

I would really like to see a poll that asks:
"Do you ever intentionally watch or listen to an entire political campaign advertisement before changing the channel?" My guess is 20% Yes; 70% No; 10% Dozed off

Posted by: spd rdr - chrome wheeled, fuel injected and steppin' out over the line at February 8, 2012 03:09 PM

But it is the mush brained "undecided" 3 weeks before the election voter that gathers some impression from the blizzard of ads.
The parties are fighting over 5-10% of the electorate, the "undecideds", and also trying to keep "the base" fired up.

It's not the politically committed or knowledgeable voter who is influenced by ads (unless it's like a Go Daddy kind of ad, with.....well you get the idea).

Posted by: Don Brouhaha at February 8, 2012 04:15 PM

...it would seem to follow that whoever we nominate had better be good at raising money.

Perhaps that is true. On the other hand, we might also say that it follows that we want to nominate someone who has proven their ability to compete against a monetary advantage.

For example, say a man who has managed to wage a successful insurgent campaign on less than fifty thousand dollars per quarter, against an opponent who is funded at more than $1.3 million per quarter. Or a man who has managed to take $2.2 million in total donations, and run even with a man who took in over $56 million, and has a substantial fortune of his own.

Those men are both, of course, Rick Santorum. If he wins the nomination, much of the resources that would have been made available to Romney will be made available to him. It seems he knows how to stretch a dollar. Perhaps -- if we are speaking purely tactically -- we'd be wiser to trust the man who knows how to make his dollars work.

Posted by: Grim at February 8, 2012 09:34 PM

Post a comment

To reduce comment spam, comments on older posts are put into moderation 5 days after the last activity. Comments with more than one link also go into moderation. If you don't see your comment after posting it, try refreshing the screen. If you still don't see it, your comment is probably in the moderation queue.




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)